From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B353C000D for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7446061F for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:13:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SAcCqkCcpzHM for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:13:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D644607AD for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id k26so4813003pfi.5 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 02:13:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=NTIxRUiAsnIzH62ZDKO8K3lKx7k4NDHKh07mJSF9vK0=; b=Vjxpu7ML76FrqGn0tD7Hbkx0cz5gbq0SiROy5eUyltKuXK1Pf3rEFGppGg2joLF3+X C+DSOYlO2XCFkRx/QXIvkAHwjr9ojsZ+rcNFnlU2TK3gQJeMs7oZtlztOYRfvjCaJgo7 f8JlEjOUUtcN0KjyMGZt0iRpqi9Kw8OnqIBp3GbFKV8Nq/oac2x+nEKcR9eX83+CqFTi K/HUXMS+AVqj0eWxdt41UxtsrZc8CQzk2tJtgGqySjA6DbwBQ+3ezoFqYPK1x8533bxm Ezib9/l/58xh4bJSrJmvEgQy0ibHwxWrZ9LI4Y4+Y1kcwCBHkAAofvFplOedOO1WqJlP ZVvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=NTIxRUiAsnIzH62ZDKO8K3lKx7k4NDHKh07mJSF9vK0=; b=dBJxlR+Z8D68N9C4Jg2KIAXxVHBwJrZbR+bcKy9MkOa0R3wWTQQqkVGgutHRuDjaYF qxCsrlZ5pL6qNsxC4ACmXnIdOF2oOMHRn/lYSw8wD9DkeMu3T+1Zqr2TH6JY3Z6EcVBJ u1R1oj7fnJGjePhuQRb3+tvFEotsm6vMnt8AYrXEQvVBIOapAx/1Lmot0icWU/qehMka EMwCii86A6plNuF7Tsc9tgv/ENVD4GIomBWYzaBUmBRgfrTfckwaS3b5TIhVdIax5C62 qWYCnjKVSJ9iM1rYvZ/eU86YFu+OMXt8dP5nX4/EdXtVJIGzoq4NAypvwrXQgolJZN+b BeRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dD8MLJ7YCb0xb78xGPCAbdnlq+tNugHrWcz44l77l3BYLwcvX rgzdLgImoUzNJFF4sRnQ7oDUKRyApJNPq1vTspg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybktZ3bIY/XYqbOvcIve/6PvXYCASxcOTtbQSh/SGbjrh8IuS2a63hQuYcMwk+7X1zeXFcLgBbItTwd5rSOCM= X-Received: by 2002:a62:8f53:0:b0:44c:5d10:9378 with SMTP id n80-20020a628f53000000b0044c5d109378mr2936463pfd.19.1633598034706; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 02:13:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210808215101.wuaidu5ww63ajx6h@ganymede> In-Reply-To: From: shymaa arafat Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:13:33 +0200 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090855105cdbfae65" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 07:55:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Removing the Dust Limit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 09:13:56 -0000 --00000000000090855105cdbfae65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" If u allow me to discuss,,, I previously suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or strucutre in general if we are talking about the original set. I'm a kind of person who doesn't like to throw any thing; if it's not needed now keep it in the basement for example. So, if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in such cases u can verify then delete them. On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Good morning e, > > > mostly thinking out loud > > > > suppose there is a "lightweight" node: > > > > 1. ignores utxo's below the dust limit > > 2. doesn't validate dust tx > > 3. still validates POW, other tx, etc. > > > > these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a series of valid, > > mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored dust tx, however > > this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% attack > > How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs > and creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)? > Is it valid (to such a node) or not? > > I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if > the UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an > already-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000090855105cdbfae65 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If u allow me to discuss,,,
I previously= suggested storing dust UTXOS in a separate Merkle tree or strucutre in gen= eral if we are talking about the original set.
I'm a k= ind of person who doesn't like to throw any thing; if it's not need= ed now keep it in the basement for example.=C2=A0
So= , if dust UTXOS making a burden keep them in secondary storage, where in su= ch cases u can verify then delete them.



On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 06:52 ZmnSCPxj via bit= coin-dev <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Good morning e,

> mostly thinking out loud
>
> suppose there is a "lightweight" node:
>
> 1.=C2=A0 ignores utxo's below the dust limit
> 2.=C2=A0 doesn't validate dust tx
> 3.=C2=A0 still validates POW, other tx, etc.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0these nodes could possibly get forked - accepting a= series of valid,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mined blocks where there is an invalid but ignored = dust tx, however
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0this attack seems every bit as expensive as a 51% a= ttack

How would such a node treat a transaction that spends multiple dust UTXOs a= nd creates a single non-dust UTXO out of them (after fees)?
Is it valid (to such a node) or not?

I presume from #1 it never stores dust UTXOs, so the node cannot know if th= e UTXO being spent by such a tx is spending dust, or trying to spend an alr= eady-spent TXO, or even inventing a TXO out of `/dev/random`.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000090855105cdbfae65--